Going Beyond "Dangerous" Climate Change

Date: Thursday 4 February 2016
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue: Old Theatre, Old Building
Speaker: Professor Kevin Anderson
Chair: Professor Tim Dyson
Despite high-level statements to the contrary, there is little to no chance of maintaining the global mean surface temperature increase at or below 2 degrees Celsius. Moreover, the impacts associated with 2°C have been revised upward sufficiently so that 2°C now more appropriately represents the threshold between 'dangerous' and 'extremely dangerous' climate change.
Kevin Anderson will address the endemic bias prevalent amongst many of those building emission scenarios to underplay the scale of the 2°C challenge. In several respects, the modeling community is actually self-censoring its research to conform to the dominant political and economic paradigm. However, even a slim chance of 'keeping below' a 2°C rise now demands a revolution in how we consume and produce energy. Such a rapid and deep transition will have profound implications for the framing of society, and is far removed from the rhetoric of green growth that increasingly dominates the climate change agenda.
Kevin Anderson (@KevinClimate) is Professor of Energy and Climate Change at the University of Manchester.
Tim Dyson is Professor of Population Studies in the Department of International Development at LSE.
The Department of International Development (@LSE_ID) promotes interdisciplinary post-graduate teaching and research on processes of social, political and economic development and change.

[@aland5478]

Going on 7 years later and we are coming closer to 2C. Kevin was right on here. I believe we will blow right by 2C on our way to much higher temps. The rise will be faster and faster after we reach 2C. God speed!

[@giorgialadashvili4771]

2023 and already we are exceeding 1.5C as a temperature anomaly. We will be past that threshold firmly by 2035 and past 2C by 2050 at the latest. I shudder to think what will be by 2100 or 2150.

[@vanguardau]

This video should be shown in every school and living room in the world-it's that important!

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

+vanguardau Yes.

[@crazyfx5242]

Yes, It's very Important

[@lengthmuldoon]

+vanguardau Have to make it into a cartoon they do with most works of fiction these days.

[@lengthmuldoon]

rd264 Oh it really is. Find out how claimed temp trends for the ENTIRE PLANET to tenths of a degree are produced then judge if "fiction" is inappropriate. Drawing numbers out of a hat is more scientific. Pure spoofery.

[@lengthmuldoon]

rd264 "fairly simple physics problem" Haha, inadvertently you might have stumbled on to something you do know what the only IRREFUTABLE evidence of a link betwixt co2 in the atmosphere and warming is don't you?? If you don't, check it out, and marvel at how this vid blathers against the only truly robust science in this topic.

[@4amknews478]

It must feel like high school again for these professors.... Intelligent , useful facts and warnings about climate change. And , No views , No popularity, but they are doing some excellent work exposing the facts of climate change . keep doing what your doing guys.

[@the81kid]

+Mitch Lucian Not only that, read all the comments here insulting him and name-calling.

[@thalesnemo2841]

Extinction for humanity looms ! If not then definitely collapse of industrialized society!

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@skinnyTheCat]

As usual, Kevin is just outstanding on explaining the complexities of our terrible troubles with the heating world. And he also elegantly shows and explains what is actually needed to be done. Thank you Kevin for your engagement in this important matter !

[@matthauslill4577]

Why does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a reference year for the IPCC - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@bealtainecottage]

A rare man...Kevin, you have my full admiration!

[@matthauslill4577]

The numbers of our actual climate are not alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@noelduffey2395]

Around the 1hr 20-minute mark , thank you Kevin for being honest and humble. 👏

[@maryfoster6919]

The talk is good. I wish the video showed the slides.

[@BobbbyJoeKlop]

Amazing lecture. Thanks for making this available to the public. Profound: 53:00

[@shivshankarpe]

+BzTruetalk I have read and seen a lot of climate change-related material, and I didn't doubt any part of what K. Anderson said here. When you wake up to this REALITY, remember me right here!

[@ricardomaccotta6367]

i keep the elephant :))))= (size always matters)

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@LambasBoy]

Why no "download" button? This needs to be divulged and not having a download button makes it harder. Kevin Anderson is the only lecturer in the world that I have to put in .5 speed in order to understand all his words. He is almost a scientist-rapper.

[@shivshankarpe]

+Pedro Lambareiro I have seen his other lectures on youtube. He is not usually this fast. Maybe he has grown very worried about the path we are on and drank too much coffee before the lecture to compensate.

[@matthauslill4577]

The brutal numbers of our today climate are not alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@jamesincandenza6973]

Would it be possible to see a copy of Mr. Anderson's slides, so we have a frame of reference for his presentation?

[@ricardomaccotta6367]

yeah, it is unbelievable how in this kind or presentation can be so miserably recorded

[@varasuetamminga9519]

Brilliant. Put this man in charge of getting us moving on the changes which we must imagine and create by 2030. Enough of double talk.

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@itspeekaboo]

I quite like this guy always a good honest presentation.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

Technical quality of this was really good, especially the audience microphones. And Anderson was in great form overall.

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@john1boggity56]

Thank you Little Fish - great resource. Climate change is a tough subject. I read Science Daily a couple if times a week and various other resources and there is always some aspect that needs closer attention. I think it truly impossible to build an aacurate predictive climate model.

[@matthauslill4577]

The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@timtam2126]

Great presentation thanks Kevin...global warming is the biggest challenge facing humanity and our children - we need a green revolution. The current political, economic and social structures have failed, time for change on a massive scale.

[@GrahamAndDairne]

An interesting point of view, but I had to work hard to see the presentation through to the end. Poor video editing; no sight of the slides, poor lighting. no microphones for questioners. Could not even find out the name of the presenter except by going bak to the beginning and listening to the introduction. In this day and age, nybody should be ble to do better. What a pity!

[@dougiefresh1623]

Yeah, just keep turning your gaze to the slide show that we can't see !

[@barbarasmith6005]

Showing the slides would have been nice.

[@ravindertalwar553]

God bless you all

[@dennishorne1542]

Sound good. Perhaps LSE professors could have a whip-around and buy another camera so information on the screen can be recorded. Next time?

[@patersjy]

Gets better every time I watch it. He is on the money.

[@theecanmole]

Great talk and a great follow up to his 2011 London School of Economics talk 'Beyond Dangerous Climate Change Brutal Numbers and Tenuous Hope' (which is also worth listening to).

[@matthauslill4577]

The brutal numbers are not alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@tullygeevagh]

He maintains it is a consumption issue rather than a population issue and that population is a complete red herring. I disagree when it is the aspiration of almost everyone to consume more. I agree that competitive consumption is the most vicious cause but while the politics of capitalism remain transcendent and socialism is despised population rise inevitably will give rise to greater consumption and therefore greater emissions. I feel that population control is probably more achievable than the abandonment of capitalism and can be promoted as a political objective whereas an attack on Capitalism would rapidly lead to Armageddon.

[@paulpritty7914]

Whoever set up the camera for this; you can now get a tripod that pans, so you could have shown us the graphics instead of just showing Kevin talking about them and pointing at them.

[@MrSoumyaDutta]

Great talk. The slides /visuals were badly needed as part of the presentation, but strangely missing

[@ruthallen3774]

The irony of a school of "economics" posting a vid on climate change...

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@jockmoron]

Great talk, poor camera work. It was very frustrating watching a video that provides no more information than if I closed my eyes.

[@tonypalliser3761]

Wish we could have someone like this as president of the U.S

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@Morten_Nielsen1979]

Lousy camera work! But thanks for the video anyway.

[@patersjy]

Where's the bloody slides???

[@stephenallen2444]

The speaker is important, but so is the presentation material! This is a great lecture, but the camera is on the speaker ONLY, never on the slides he is presenting. Anybody know where those can be found in PDF, PPT, etc?

[@rogerwatson1882]

According to Wikipedia, fuel economy of commercial aircraft is around 2 litres/100 km per passenger I assume, much better than automobiles.

[@folkeholmberg3519]

With some editorial work this would have been even more interesting.

[@emilylyons2683]

There is something I don't understand. He is saying that people in the Southern Hemisphere will feel the effects first, but the Northern Hemisphere is heating up faster so far. Is this projected to change?

[@Praisethesunson]

Everyone knows the face of the speaker is more important than any visual aids the speaker may have. -LSE

[@christianlibertarian5488]

Why don't camera operators realize that the information is in the slides, not the face of the speaker?

[@MrSvenovitch]

probably when you realize there is no god so don't hold your breath

[@owlnationlegal4228]

Who was the genius operating the audio feed you cqn't hear?

[@thesavannalady]

Great great great speech. One flaw. You think Economics is a science. I think it is only a philosophy. I think this is why we have ended up in such a pickle. We have bet our entire planet on a weak philosophy.

[@patersjy]

thesavannalady He actually equates economics with astrology! The point he was making was it's not even remotely scientific.

[@thesavannalady]

Oh. Oops! My bad. Thanks for pointing that out!

[@patersjy]

You don't know where to get the powerpoint do you?🙂

[@thesavannalady]

No but if you contact him on twitter - @KevinClimate - I am sure he will oblige.

[@dannygjk]

Well technically economics is a science in that it uses math(s). The problem is the assumption of infinite growth which has gotten us into trouble.

[@amaramichaels2064]

I have to wonder regarding the wisdom of using salt in the upper atmosphere for reflection. I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that the salt will eventually falls somewhere as salty rain. Is it me who is missing something here ?????????? The audience member proclaiming those who know have a responsibility to speak out has obviously never heard that our society tends to shoot the messenger. lol. There are many people ( just doing their job ) rewarded handsomely for silencing/discrediting those unfortunate people who have no option but to care.

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@peterdollins3610]

As I understand it providing the last 10/15% of base load via renewables is incredibly expensive & difficult to do. So to provide that part of energy by Nuclear is very possible with the rest coming from renewables that is developing fast. So it is possible. The holding back of run off water is proven to bring back land into a fertile state. So even today in 2021 it is still, just possible, if increasingly unlikely.

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@the81kid]

Good talk. What he's saying is true. Even though he completely misses a lot of important information. For example, the agriculture industry - by far, the worst is the global livestock sector - emits more carbon than ALL forms of transport combined. He passes over a lot of essential information. But, what he says is correct: even in the scenario that the politicians and economists are counting on (most likely for votes and power and more profit) - there isn't a hope of hell of even making a dent. (Good to hear that the Divestment campaign got brought up though.)

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Dr Jill Stein, Green Party, 2016!

[@matthauslill4577]

Why does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a reference year for the IPCC - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@jetlagger3357]

Awesome and terribel at the same time. Kevin Anderson is the awesome part. Mr.Cameraman you are terrible!

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

As I put it: Reasoning is abstract, but never do things for abstract reasons. Reasons must be grounded in hard physical reality such as physical science, thermodynamics, energy, work, entropy, pain and suffering. DOW jones and GDP are meaningless worthless poorly-defined abstractions that mean nothing real. Always think reductionistically.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Fantastic brilliant speaker! He is concerned with provable quantifiable falsifiable proof and science. Extremely rare among economists, who all tend to be rightwing extremists.

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@GD-ks1qh]

panglossian, you're not trying to steerthe titanic youre trying to make it fly, good man, lost dreams

[@thabisosylvesterseatlhodi2639]

Quite enlightening if only slides were available for viewers ........

[@wayneparkinson4558]

I Like this guy kevin Anderson who makes the point that the people in the room he is speaking don't even realize that they are some of the worse emitter's , could have been more tactful though seeing he was in the petro chemicial engineer in the oil industry and probably has a pension linked to it. But i suppose you need to start with someone why not a steely scotsman to get the point over.

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@wayneparkinson4558]

Transfer of heat through the oceans is what's causing the real issue the conveyor belt is heating up the poles it's not rocket science the creep or march of the temperate barrier north and south is depositing weather systems in higher latitudes causing the melting of the caps why can't the science just be more simplified then have a consensus and rely to the cause

[@matthauslill4577]

@@wayneparkinson4558 And you think with lowering our CO2 emissions the AMOC , GULF stream etc are impressed. The CO2 absorption bands are anyhow highly saturated. Better concentrate on adaptation measurements. What are the ideas of Kevin Anderson in this respect? We don't resolve this inexistent crisis by talking faster and faster.

[@wayneparkinson4558]

They still got to convince some people that the earth isn't flat you will always get scientism if skepticism was use more back in the dark ages then i think populations would not be so trusting of authority instead believing the earth was at the center of the universe when in fact we are just another rocky body in the cosmos.fight or is it flight only the future will ultimately tell us.

[@oorzuis1419]

bad camera work can't see his power point screen why?

[@bryan3dguitar]

This guy needs to slow down his delivery. Especially for non-British listeners. Much better at x .075 speed. Showing the slide show full-screen with the speaker in a little video box would help, but probably isn't absolutely necessary if you can follow his verbal delivery.

[@matthauslill4577]

The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming as presented by Mr Anderson. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@beautifulnature1814]

let us also look at containerships that pollute

[@MrTageamu]

Good luck in "saving the planet" :-)

[@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921]

Please share my two brief videos with other people. Thank you!

[@beautifulnature1814]

can we put climatechange on the news globally so that the people of the world are asked to help, everybody in their own capability and that they are going to realize that we are nature, that there is no separation. If earth suffers, we will suffer as well. That we have to see reality as it is and that we have to work together as one humanity. I think that it is the job of scientists, universities and political people to make everybody aware and to wake us up to help and what we can do. I am sure that ordinary people can also contribute a great deal.

[@storm21410]

+Nelly Coerts The problem is that there are right-wing idiots in the UK who are in favour of cheap coal over wind farms, and also that the general public only care about the economy. For example, with Brexit, it's mainly to do with immigration and the economy. If we leave, right-wing nuts are likely to be in power for longer, and the combination of the denial of climate change AND the lack of cooperation with nearby countries.

[@beautifulnature1814]

+Yash Patel yes, there will always be people and situations like that. But isn't it better to think in solutions rather then in problems? Everybody can take a small step to inform other people they know about climate change and ask them to take a small step as well to help nature. Together we can make a difference. People like Gandi, Mandela and Martin Luther King etc have proven that it is possible to mobilize people for the good of all.

[@annietoday2037]

the cement needed to construct nuclear plants puts them in the laughable range, not to mention the fact that the amount of coolant (water) needed is far from reliable .

[@kingmiura8138]

What is the "correct" temperature of planet earth? I assume that the warmists must believe the temperature is now too hot.....and going to get much too hot. I notice that scientist Al Gore does not want comments on his videos. I suggest that scientist Al and scientist DiCaprio should immediately sell their huge mansions and stop jetting around the world in order to set an example.

[@thalesnemo2841]

King Miura From ice core data for the last 800,000 years the Earth had 180-280 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.

[@meagain2222]

There exists a technology which could singlehandedly fix global warming and that is "Cold Fusion" or LENR it works but needs scientists to make it work in a practical sense.Governments should fund a crash program to make this work.

[@john1boggity56]

Can someone refer me to credible peer reviewed source material that points to changing sun patterns and the relationship to current climate change? This claim is made a lot by people who don't accept man induced climate science. I'd like to try and understand the argument. Thanks in advance...

[@JeffShot1]

+matthew peterson www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@ellenpressly247]

Obviously, someone has turned the sound down on this video, so that we don't listen to the truth

[@markcranfield1]

Good thoughtful presentation but way off the mark talking about how our trip on a plane is going to mean Africans can't have power. To deny them power in any way would be the very worst kind of imperialism and in any event hard to do in practice. Intention is to help third world with solar installations.

[@MrAeneas]

Too difficult for me to follow - I'm an American, and this speech requires extreme concentration and multiple listening just to hear all the words. Normally, that is only a minor problem, but with technical subjects requiring some degree of intellectual processing it is hard to follow. I do, of course, get the gist of it, and I'm certainly on board - Have been since about 1965, but I was excluded from most discussions since my focus was on population control, anti-war, and other "extremist" issues. TY.

[@bobstevens9353]

America needs to vote Bernie as POTUS and take over both the House & Senate and try & come up with a way to reduce the atmospheric CO2 enuf to try and arrest the loop back effects that have started and find a way to begin cooling the planet & slow down the effects of climate change and shorten the time to recovery of the Arctic & Antarctic ice and slowly remove the CO2 over each decade & also growing new plant life to absorb more CO2 and maybe we can save humanity!!!!

[@randomvariable4597]

Why the opening reference to the space shuttle? A nod to the ungodly before bringing up the topic of climate change? A statement that you will be honest but not too honest? Hope you are not counting on a miracle.

[@matthauslill4577]

The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming as presented by Mr Anderson. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@michaelmcphillips4079]

On the point of retrofitting the homes of those in fuel poverty with what was given to the banks, that's a misconception of reality. What the banks give to those paid with taxes in the line of bank credit has to be paid by them (the banks) and their private sector customer borrowers and savers. Taxes are bills the banks and all their private sector customers have to pay. They're never a credit unless they're returned to those who pay them. Accepting them as collateral for credit is accepting the responsibility for paying the loans. The banking system consists of all private sector taxpayers and all its loans have to be repaid by them. Those paid with taxes are gifted anything they get from the system and make no commercial or financial return to it. The capital for their loans has to be borrowed by the banks or taken from their private sector customer borrowers and savers. The level of public sector pay is responsible for the bank problems. That and the retirement deals when measured in terms of bank credit is what's broken the banks.

[@ttmallard]

From paleontology & oceanography we are now in a geologic excursion caused by a large carbon perturbation shown too well by us acidifying the oceans 10-times faster than our only analog the PETM, that heating part took 50,000-years btw. So now we're subject to the 10,000-year/25% rule, that is 1/4 of our emissions now stay in the atmosphere 10,000-years and it's cumulative, none of it goes away for a cycle of 200,000-years to get close to where it started. That's how the planet works, do what you like. We have no "carbon budget", we blew that when we entered a carbon excursion, likely that was late 1950's of the actual chance to stay in the Pleistocene-Holocene climate, long gone honey get off the drugs.

[@quantumcat7673]

So much is omitted here that I questioned the scientific value of this video. If you are going to talk about climate change, then you should have talked about the reality of our current situation (we are in an inter glacial) since about 11600 years ago. Inter glacial last on average about 10ky and glacial 90ky (from analysis of Greenland and Antarctica ice core). Those data are real and should be at least considered in the analysis and yet...

[@nxgrs74]

The albedo/atmosphere make the Earth cooler not warmer. Yes or no? If no pls ‘splain. The GHGs must absorb “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body. The kinetic energy heat transfer processes in the contiguous atmospheric molecules make BB impossible as also demonstrated by experiment. Agree or disagree? If disagree pls ‘splain. If both or either of these points is correct the greenhouse effect is not. No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven global warming or climate change. Version 1.0 120621

[@rd264]

one of the immediate tasks we need to begin is to reduce birth rates; we should try to achieve asap a sustainable world population---- ~1-2 billion..

[@simonjlkoreshoff3426]

From 1:04:00 on complex systems. Did Greta hear this - she’s has been influenced by Kevin - and did it spur her to action!! Dunn Store cashier may have changed the world.

[@Gadinata]

Print this lecture on clay tablets so our children can read it in their caves

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@MegaMementoMori]

He states 2 facts I: most deaths related to climate change will occur in poorer countries II: To stop climate change, richer countries should cut their emissions, while poorer countries could just peak more slowly. Now, why exactly should we go with this plan?

[@Aanthanur]

+MegaMementoMori because we caused teh problem. not the poor countries.

[@MegaMementoMori]

Aanthanur DC I realize that most people who watch this guy don't mind getting climate martyred, but most people care about their families prosperity more then some generic African kids from the other side of the world. I was asking - what would we gain by listening to him as opposed to demanding high levels of reduction from 3rd world before we reduce our CO2?

[@Aanthanur]

MegaMementoMori "demanding high levels of reduction from 3rd world before we reduce our CO2?" poor countries have tiny footprionts, virtually nothing, and the little they use is very essential to them. while we produce alot and mainly not things we absolutely needs to survive like in the 3rd world. only China has reallly big footprint. but percapita they are just on EU level. and they already agreed to reduce their emissions.

[@MegaMementoMori]

Aanthanur DC We don't want simply to survive. We want to _live_. And without future technology, having a good life with a small amount of CO2 is quite hard. I guess we could agree to scale down for a bit, if our kids' futures are at stake. But if the stake is a few foreigners who will not be forced to scale back (which will make us look like _suckers_ from the freerider dilemma), I can't see many non radical left Westerners going for it.

[@Aanthanur]

MegaMementoMori wow, western arrogance. we in the first world are responsible for the lion share of the emissions since the industrial revolution. we caused the majrity of CO2 concentration increase in the atmospehre. but now you demand that poor countries that still have almost no footprint. to reduce their emissions? you do know that China and Inda are already implementing AGW mitigation policies? India has a CO2 tax on coal. does the US have a federal Co2 tax on coal?

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

John McAfee, Privacy Party, 2016!

[@calebrochester9516]

How to live when you know your already dead? This the question, I guess. Guy doesn't know. I don't know. Anybody have any ideas? I'm all ears.

[@antonohaodha1846]

day by day

[@a1ethioS]

Every human that has ever lived, giving even a passing thought to the matter, has seen that their death is inevitable.

[@calebrochester9516]

+a1ethioS it's everybody's life. It's the entire species. It's civilization. Things that seem to be permanent turn out to be very temporary. All the normal assumptions are wiped out by a new world view. Your kids don't have future. You don't a future that can be predicted in any basic way. This is new. Nobody thought this, besides a handful of philosophers and Mystics. The future is dead. This not common knowledge. This is the ground falling away under your feet. This is very very strange. For me, it puts life in a new context (though I've had doom on my mind for my whole life). Still, to actually happen everyday, makes it much more real. It make me wonder how much time have left. It's pretty heavy, dude.

[@bobrolander4344]

The only thing good about this: *Aliens from all parts of the galaxy can, from now on, take Earth as a case study against capitalism and materialism.* After our *extinction,* no living being in the entire universe can ever argue for dog-eat-dog social darwinism again, without making complete fools of themselves.

[@superjose101]

Yeah

[@ShunyamNiketana]

Homo sapiens will always need energy, especially now that we are on the cusp of 8 billion, one of three of whom live in two developing countries. How would socialism, if that is what you're advocating, produce and maintain an energy paradigm to serve all these people? Wind and solar aren't adequate and aren't carbon neutral and their production has serious environmental impacts. My understanding is that construction is a much bigger contributor than jet exhaust is. Cars, too, of course. But most people can't afford electric or hybrid cars. Two solutions: nuclear energy and carbon recapture.

[@richarddavis8783]

the step that should be taken to control rising seas and to cool the planet. the proposal is to have desalination plants spread offshore along the coasts. how far apart will depend on the measure of arctic ice melt and the capacity of the plants. the objective is to take water from the seas as fast as the artics melt keeping ph levels equal the plants are to be placed on floating platforms. the distance from the shoreline to be determined by environmental concerns over waste ejecting back into the sea. plants to be powered by solar and wind with excess power directed to the mainland. their construction will provide worldwide employment putting a giant dent in impoverishment. weight the cost of these plants against the cost of loss of life and tax revenue of land underwater a third of our earth is desert. freshwater production will make them bloom. real food will be so abundant that starvation will be a thing of the past. bamboo farms will preserve the forest and mitigate carbon emissions. good example: freshwater farming will cool the sahara and northeast africa, bringing cooler air over the atlantic ocean mitigating hurricane seasons, and saving trillions in damage. another, is the cooling of the southwest united states and mexico’s arid lands to bring down the severity of tornados. forest fires abated with sprinkling systems desalination extracts minerals that can be used for our benefit. the benefits seem endless. the main one being that all nations come together to overcome ice melt and other future events.

[@MrSvenovitch]

we're fucked. embrace your own demise

[@quantumcat7673]

Economics can hardly be considered a science. It is more akin to an art and the results of an analysis reflect a lot of human bias. Sir, next time, rent a machine to show your slides. It's very economic and is worth many thousands words.

[@glaswurm1]

U will never change climate by politics.

[@DeFietsreiziger]

I'm not going to take your word for it. As politics is changed by us all of the time.

[@glaswurm1]

Politicians fill their pockets, nothing else! There is nothing done for climate, (I am climate skeptic, The earth gets greener, food production is rising because of CO2 rising. There is much more to fear from cooling)

[@davidwright8432]

You don't need politics. Climate will change all by itself, no matter who thinks what of it. We push it by actions, not incessant political bleather.

[@glaswurm1]

david wright >Climate will change all by itself,

[@emilylyons2683]

I'm not advocating ice ages, but mass extinctions tend to follow severe global warming, not ice ages, when you look at the history of life on the earth.

[@tomjohn8733]

What bothers me about you academic experts warning us about climate change, where we’re all of you years ago, why only now are you speaking up…I’ve been speaking up about the dangers of climate change for many years, only I’m not a position of getting any recognition because I’m not in academia or written/ published a book, nor have any financial or political interests, other than preserving this earth and its biosphere for life….

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@tomjohn8733]

@@matthauslill4577 well, I agree with your last sentence, however, it’s all about the laws of physics, fields affecting field, we are all energy in one form or another, life depends on other life forms , when something is lost, it effect other life forms, the domino effect…every thing is about change, and if one doesn’t learn to change or adapt, is goes extinct, which is why we need to change our system in order to adapt, not only to climate, but to new technology, it it’s all about the numbers and science..so, whether or not we fully understand or believe it, is really irrelevant…

[@peterdollins3610]

Terrible accidents we have made may save us? Covid 19 & other man induced plagues? See Laurie Garrett's 1994 book 'The Coming Plague' & her other works.

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@peterdollins3610]

Professor Kevin Anderson, You can stop using plastics to have an old fashioned water bottle bought from a charity & try to examine all your food emissions & miles but most importantly point out 70 or so companies produce nearly 80% of all emissions so this is a general thing first. See my comment on fossil fuel companies lobbying & lying with the linked interview revealing this.

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@hermit1249]

I try to listen to all these climate change lectures objectively, but when the rhetoric gets around to 'disasterous consequences if we don't do this or that, then I'm afraid they lose me altogether and my reasons for that are simple: #1... there have been several ice ages in climate history and sudden warming trends which brought them to an end, so what happened to drastically change the climate to extreme cold and then to warm and back to cold again etc etc? The climate has always been changing and we can be damned thankful it has. It'll continue to change and humanity had better come to grips with the fact that it's NOT busted, so quit trying to fix it. I'm not saying we should just go ahead with the rape/pillage program we've been on for far too long, on the contrary, stop the r/p and work with the planet... #2 It's history proves it's far more dynamic than we can even imagine, it's been through far worse than anything we can throw at it and it'll still be bobbing around in space long after we've gone. So lets all calm down learn from the planet and live with it instead of trying to control it, after all, we need it .. it doesn't need us. Personally, I believe we're right between two ice ages at the moment... and a LOT closer to the next one than we are to the last one. I don't base this 'theory' on climate change rhetoric from so-called experts, I base it on what I've read and listened to about the planets' history, from good solid tangible scientific evidence.. ice core samples from Greenland, Antarctica, sediment core samples from the ocean floors all over the planet, geological info from around the world.. it's all there, dig around and find it and remember, the people (IPCC is a perfect example) who lay the doom 'n gloom scenarios on us are paid multi billions of dollars to do so.. pretty nice little jobs and they aren't about to give them up as long as we keep believing their sensationalist headlines.

[@haleg68]

+Roger Coles So you claim to be an armchair climate scientist then? Write it down get it published and collect your Nobel prize. Its worth 1 million $ so go ahead.

[@zacht1376]

+Roger Coles Heres all you need to know, the more CO2 emitted into the astmosphere, the more heat it traps. Ice melts, sea levels rise..simple cause and effect right here. For earth, whether its re-occuring again at regular or rapid pace like the warming trend is indicating now it does not matter. For us humans, just a species who developed immensely w/great cognitive functions..it is not good. You can draw tributaries from the cause and effect process of CO2 emissions all you want but it does not change facts, we ARE indeed living dangerously close to a point of no return for our habitat that is called earth. Oh yeah, we also have asteroids and comets to worry about...Planet defense & Enviroment protection is what we really need focus on, not false values called $$$ made by mankind.

[@tracey6864]

its too late arctic + 5c higher temp. methane has entered first stage release .chemtrails stoped it this year but not for long.

[@tracey6864]

i hope you are correct.

[@SwitchModeMutations]

+tracey foote Try not to panic... ice and permafrost doesn't melt at -25'C and it's usually -30'C at north of the arctic circle.

[@tracey6864]

check out the new weather mod drones if you wanna see a current sales ad. when i was young 1978-79 we had usda testing cloud seeding on our farm. i watched it back then and i must admit i didnt work but im sure they got better.

[@matthauslill4577]

Do you think " IPCC climate science" is a science? The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@jukeseyable]

global extinction event, homo sapiens are cordially invited, the paperwork is been drawn up, signed mummy nature

[@truthscollector]

Is incredible how some people can be easyly fooled..., let´s explain : At 26:05 , he claims " nuclear power is low carbon energy ", advocating that way for such a crime against humanity, come on, Mr Anderson .... If you take in account BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, and then producing , transporting, and wasting nuclear fuel, you find ...... NUCLEAR IS SIMPLY NOT LOW CARBON ENERGY..!....

[@qvintuse.urvind7002]

First of all, Kevin Anderson is explaining how one technology like nuclear power plants, or even all kinds of technologies, cannot turn the world around towards zero/low (and much less negative) carbon emissions, without also actually abandoning the current economical system with ever more extraction and burning of fossil fuels. What is needed is serious substantial cuts in CO2-emissions, but simply adding more solar, wind, hydro, and possibly nuclear, will not reduce the current fossil fuel burning. And he is right about nuclear being relatively low carbon, whatever one may think about that energy source in other aspects. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

[@maggieadams8600]

It's odd because even he found himself excusing "poor" people for air travel, stating more or less that it's a drop in the ocean and they work hard all year and look forward to a holiday.... Is it worth it if it's killing off your future though? Plus, is it SO bad if we don't go abroad on holiday but stay in our own country.? It's not so long ago that only millionaires travelled around the world, and people were actually happier in the 1950's when they hardly travelled at all. Also, I was thinking, if we could combine rewilding, with eventually holidays in the country, as being in nature literally cures people of depression and all kinds of psychological problems that come from living in concrete jungles. Flying to another pile of concrete to get pissed and shovel down meat for two weeks is just more of the same. We should all want to change our lifestyles because we are all implicated.

[@gphilipc2031]

solution: voluntary non-reproduction even and importantly in 3rd world countries. The developed nations have other issues to be addressed.

[@davidthomas2974]

6l lo olooooloolo)looolo)loloo)l)

[@ingridsanmasanmartin613]

i

[@brianpower2014]

brainless camera work

[@tommiecharcoal]

Because nature cannot be fooled. But humans can. Tell me why are you not advocating restrictions on horticultural and brewery use of co2 ?. Also you talk to fast and don't really convince me at all, I'm not on board. byebye

[@matthauslill4577]

Mr Anderson assumes that " IPCC climate science" is a real science. The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@__-Victory-__]

You'd be great at explaining the GWEN towers, all the NEXRAD stations, HAARP antennas, all the metallic nano particulates, electro magnetic frequencies and how they put all that together to make the "climate change"! 🤣

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

24': 75% of mass of gas is carbon-come on, that's misleading; more than 25% of the energy is from the 4 hydrogens, which is why it's less carbon-intensive. I'm no fan of gas, but let's get the facts right.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

Also, ~27': nuclear now providing 2.5% of final energy. Also misleading: Nuclear implies electricity, and if all energy use were electric (electric cars, heat pumps, and so on), you'd be looking at about 1/2 of primary energy we use now. So it's really more like 5% of what you'd need in final energy use. I'm just saying get the fact right, and be clear. He isn't on this point. Actually, there's an argument he could make in the reverse direction, but doesn't: Demand is growing, on the order of 2% per year. So by 2050, overall demand could almost double again, and you could be back down to that 2.5% if you didn't increase nuclear. Again, let's look at ALL the relevant facts. I don't say any of this as a fan of nuclear. In fact, I think it's totally on the skids. But Anderson shouldn't damage his credibility by saying stuff that's just wrong.

[@jamesformby1979]

Yes agree there's some screwy logic going on. Not sure what his point is with that statement.

[@williampartridge7307]

Kim weaver Glaciers have been shrinking since 1850 we were warming for150 years that came to a halt 18 years ago we now see many glaciers starting to grow and so far we have barely started cooling.Many or most glaciers have huge lagg times before they show change The ice age will start to be felt more once this el nino has expired The warming seen over the last170 years has been caused by stronger sun spot activity ''solar wind'' that lessens cloud cover, the planet slowly warmed

[@rhyspelikan]

+William Partridge im afraid ur delusional.

[@PaulJones-oj4kr]

Broad agreement? What, 45%? CO2 rises always FOLLOW temperatures, not the other way around. And, in fact, methane's not an issue, not really. Initial modeling, instead of measuring or being able to do so, by IPCC and other studies, where data's made to fit conclusions, are just inadequate. Generally, presentation is scattered, too many sidebars and asides, and trips along too rapidly, and with no visuals.

[@matthauslill4577]

Mr Anderson assumes that " IPCC climate science" is a science. The numbers of our actual climate are not so alarming. The warming in the arctic 1930 was much more brutal and alarming with 3-4 degrees C more than today. Why then does Kevin Anderson always look so stressed. We have not even reached the 15 degrees C global mean temperature we should have already reached because of the natural greenhouse effect. Inspite of more than 40% increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1850, HadCrut and NASA GISS estimate only a slight temperature increase of about 1 degree C since 1850. We should not forget that 1850 is a little bit odd as a IPCC reference year - this was the end of the little ice age, the coldest period of the last 10 000 years and a little warming was most welcome. Apparently the impact of increasing CO2 levels on Global Warming and Climate Change is not alarming. We should focus on improving the land management and adaptation to extreme weather events which will occur from time to time even in our unusually stable Holocene climate.

[@williampartridge7307]

+Dan L.It is only nonsense if you are an unscientific sheeple I can assure you the theory of run away global warming is not held by good scientists who follow correct scientific procedure.Find out how to do science Richard Feynman in a lecture to his students makes it so simple it might help you

[@thomasarmer6657]

I watched just a few seconds this mess, bad sound and so on...If you're too lazy to make something clean stay home.

[@bimmjim]

What is this chattering squirrel going on about? Somebody should teach these people how to communicate their ideas clearly. . . . Hint: You don't have a sense of humour so stop trying to be funny. . If you want to do Stand Up, go do it somewhere else. . Speak in sentences. Form the sentence in your mind before you try to speak it. etc.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

+bimmjim Who's trying to be funny? This speaker is clearly being serious throughout this entire talk.

[@davidjames666]

Take your meds

[@ravindertalwar553]

God bless you all